Rockets

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dulres3 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > Are you using protected characteristics as > > > pejoratives? > > > > Are you quoting me out of context in order to > make > > me sound prejudiced when I'm clearly not? Do > you > > support One Dulwich? > > > > > > > > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that > > doesn't > > > involve you actually specifying what this > > magical > > > solution is, just that it's out there > > somewhere. > > > This is the thing, none of the people > objecting > > > actually have a solution which is better or > > even > > > as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good. > > > > > > > I haven?t seen any solution from the other > side > > of > > > > A simple "no I have no solution and I think a > mild > > inconvenience in a local drive is far more > > disruptive than the disruption of 4000 people > dead > > per year due to pollution" would have sufficed > as > > an answer. > > > > > > Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam > lobby > > come up with something more convincing than > "nuh > > uh"? > > Having looked at the census data for the roads in > question, the reality is that what these proposals > do is to push traffic onto main roads that have > far greater population density (because they have > more flats); far more social housing; and far more > vulnerable people in the context of Covid-19 (as a > result of their ethnicity). These also happen to > be the roads that house the majority of the area?s > schools. > > Far from reducing air pollution, what these > changes have done so far is to cause idling > traffic in circumstances where it did not exist > previously which significantly increases air > pollution, as does sending those undertaking > essential journeys on a wild goose chase to get > from A to B. I am all for initiatives that improve > air quality. However, they need to be carefully > considered and balance the needs of the community > as a whole. Simply closing a handful of roads and > diverting all the traffic into lengthy tailbacks > elsewhere cannot be hailed a victory in anyone?s > book. It is far too blunt an instrument, and (if > anything) risks increasing the annual death tally > from air pollution. Spot on Serena - unfortunately the pro-closure lobby is way too blinkered to open their eyes and see what is actually happening. These closures, at best, will likely deliver a 10% reduction in traffic which actually causes much bigger displacement problems elsewhere but the pollution NIMBYs won?t ever admit that. Mr Chicken - take a walk down the roads that are being negatively impacted by these closures and then tell us you think it is worth it. If you still aren?t convinced take another walk when the schools go back and see if you re-assess and then another when WFH comes to an end. This increased congestion on these roads won?t go away.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > You know things are bad when even The Guardian > > starts complaining about things that are > supposed > > to be improving the environment....;-) > > > You could say this Guardian writer will now > consider how to kill two birds with one stone when > taking thinks to the dump and perform other tasks > that include driving at the same time. > > This is the plan - the moan is exactly what the > response to the climate emergency is looking for > and it's "nudge" theory I think. If they've gone > to far they'll retract it a bit but it's exactly > the effect they are looking for. But when does the nudge go too far...this looks awfully familiar to what is happening around here...the law of unintended consequences.... What the > council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the > law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme > even greener, the few arterial roads with two > lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off > into single lanes with the other serving as a > cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys, > that the council are trying to promote, that used > to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30 > minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and > blue lights trying to get to the nearby St > George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as > there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out > of their way.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John Crace in the Guardian yesterday (every area > is the same!!): > > Thursday > One of the joys of a staycation that I could do > without is that it gave me the opportunity to take > a whole load of garden rubbish to the dump. What > made the experience even more punishing ? normally > this is the sort of activity that gets relegated > to a grumpy Sunday morning ? was that all the > local rat runs to avoid the stationary traffic up > Trinity Road in Wandsworth have been cordoned off > and the six-mile round trip took well over 90 > minutes. About a year ago, the council apparently > did an online consultation ? I somehow must have > missed the email alert that was presumably sent > out to everyone in the borough ? but those that > did engage tell me that the response was near > enough 100% against the proposals. And yet > Wandsworth have now used lockdown to make dozens > of residential streets not just inaccessible to > through traffic but to residents as well. The idea > behind the scheme was sound enough: to promote > greener travel by getting more people to use > bicycles and to walk where possible. What the > council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the > law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme > even greener, the few arterial roads with two > lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off > into single lanes with the other serving as a > cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys, > that the council are trying to promote, that used > to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30 > minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and > blue lights trying to get to the nearby St > George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as > there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out > of their way. Wandsworth insists this is only a > short six-month trial and that it will be reviewed > at the end of the year. No one is holding their > breath. You know things are bad when even The Guardian starts complaining about things that are supposed to be improving the environment....;-)

I was really quite shocked how dead parts of London are now: take a walk through Covent Garden and Holborn to see the impact this is having on small and big businesses alike. We walked down Park Lane a few weeks ago and not one of the hotels there were open and the usual super-car valet parking outside the Dorchester was empty bar one less that super-car. We also walked around St Paul's and it was sobering to see the impact on the businesses who provide services to office workers. Scary times for our beloved city.

Anyone else wondering how a tree manages to catch fire in the middle of the night?

Goodness me, are XR still actually around I thought they had extincted themselves following their last round of PR faux-pas: super-glueing themselves to electric trains and getting Emma Thompson to fly first class from LA to join their protest...? ;-) Imagine their surprise when they get into the cities to begin their blockades only to find that the councils blocked the roads ages ago. I don't know about anyone else but XR seem to have zero focus and never seem to know what they are trying to achieve. A bit of a rag tag group of anarchists and hippies who really have no direction at all and after reading that Guardian article they seemingly haven't used the lockdown period to get any. XR does more damage than good when it comes to the anti-pollution lobby.

January for us too. Glad I don't work in office space real estate. Although you have to worry for the businesses in London that survive on the basis of office workers or tourists.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What is beginning to annoy me is that this > looks > > like a local Tory campaign and the Tories are > > introducing this policy nationally. > > > Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council > to detract from Tory central Government who > introduced the policy. By this reckoning you must presume that Southwark would willfully implement any central government policy without any pushback at all..... I think what you will find is that local residents are pushing back, and those residents represent every political persuasion, after years of the local council ignoring the views of those who are directly impacted by a host of measures they have implemented.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > andrewc Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Are there any studies that support the idea > that > > more roads reduce traffic? > > > None. More roads equal more traffic. > > When one is accustomed to privilege, equity feels > like oppression. You won't find anyone on here suggesting we need more roads. Just a balanced, fair and equitable use of existing road infrastructure that takes all road users into account - not draconian road closures that please a small minority of road users and residents yet heaps misery on everyone else. And what is happening is not equity, far from it as it is obvious this is displacing traffic from one area to another and only the most blinkered advocate for the closures would deny that. Remember, 89% of the cars will now be going a different route - is that success and achieving the stated goals, no not even close?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is the Goose Green Labour > Councillors live: > > James Ashworth-McLintock (James McAah) - Nunhead & > Queen's Road ward > Victoria Olisa - Champion Hill ward > Charlie Smith - Dulwich Hills ward > > So no, none of them live on Melbourne Grove. > Please don't make or relate much accusations. James I think the poster may have been confusing the rumour with the DV councillors living on Calton Avenue or one of the roads positvely impacted by the closures. Is that incorrect too?

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a meta analysis of 33 studies on traffic > calming. > > "the meta-analysis shows that area-wide urban > traffic calming schemes on the average reduce the > number of injury accidents by about 15% > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/ > pii/S0001457500000464 AndrewC - you do love nothing more than to post 20 year old analysis and reports - it's not actually helping your case you realise...I would probably stop Googling and take a walk down the streets impacted by the council's closures - it's a far more effective way of assessing the real world impact rather than dusting down reports nearly two decades old to desperately try to prove a point....

Cllr McAsh is more than aware of the negative impact these closures are having on the majority of his constituents - remember he was out canvassing door to door on Melbourne Grove lobbying for support for the Melbourne Grove closures on the basis of traffic displacement from the Dulwich Village closures. As many on here predicted the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove junction is now more dangerous than ever for pedestrians and the pollution levels on Lordship Lane are rocketing and many have been asking whether he is concerned about this and yet we have heard nothing. There seems to be zero accountability for the changes he lobbied for, an unfortunate political weakness amongst politicians nowadays.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Politicians are being sued for not reducing > pollution. The Paris agreement on emissions means > that countries are mandated to comply. Not taking > action is not an option. I know that many on this > thread think that polution will go up with road > closures but all the evidence is to the contrary. > I guess this is why politicians are getting > involved. Reducing car traffic by 11% doesn't get you close to what you need to do...and over time I suspect we will learn that by trying to reduce traffic by 11% we actually increased emissions and pollution by 30%. That's what seems to be happening around Dulwich at the moment and I think we can all agree that's not what anyone wants or needs. Sometimes political posturing needs to be replaced by political pragmatism and realism and to defeat the unrealistic idealism.

....until such time as the impact is so negative on the majority that we do a U-turn... It's happening now...all across London...Londoners are saying "This is way too much and your rushed and poorly planned and ill-conceived plans are far more negative than positive". My biggest concern, and this should be yours too, is what is happening now will set the discussion on sensible plans back years as no politician will want to go near it when they realise their careers could end on the back of this...I think ExDulwicher referred to it as the third-rail...don't touch it... It's no coincidence that Cllr McAsh hasn't been on here for over a month...he knows that he needs to distance himself from any dialogue on this...

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour > of > > these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in > the > > case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if > > they're quick enough they can block off both > ends > > of the roads at once and trap some cars inside. > > You see, that is the sort of selfish and > ridiculous attitude which splits communities and > doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on > solutions not spite. Metallic, completely agree. Most people on here want a fair and balanced approach to managing pollution and congestion issues and the reliance on the car. Unfortunately, comments like Mr Chicken's show just how bad the fanaticism has become and why there seems to be no reasoning with many elements of the pro-cycle lobby and why, ultimately, a more balanced approach will have to be taken because politicians will realise that their political future will depend on who they side with - the fanatics or the majority.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Studies indicate that on average, over-all traffic > reduces by 11% (with a road closure). Is there any > evidence that this drop in car use would not be a > benefit to all local streets in terms of air > quality? If at best we can hope for is a 11% reduction then the 89% displacement is catastrophic for the surrounding roads. Therein lies the issue with these plans - the numbers just don't add up. Take the DV closure, when you remove the 11% it leaves thousands of cars finding alternative routes which is why there is traffic chaos in surrounding areas. Phase 2 of the council's plans is merely chasing the displacement and trying to move it further away from the original closures to massage the stats to prove it is a success. It's not, it's a house of cards that our councillors are forcing to crash to the ground. It's why Bromley are taking legal action against Croydon as Croydon's closures are creating havoc on some of Bromley's roads. Take a read of this from One Dulwich (LTNs the controversy) to help explain why some of the LTNs that are heralded as a success may not be quite what they seem.. https://www.onedulwich.uk/news

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > JohnL Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > If roads like Derwent Grove are made > > > > effectively > > > > > dead ends - what do things like the bin > > > lorries > > > > > do? Or delivery vans? > > > > > > > > > > > > same as they do for Cul de Sacs (the posh > > name > > > for > > > > dead ends) > > > > > > cul de sacs often have turning circles, don't > > > they? - no where for a bin lorry to turn in a > > > narrow straight road. > > > > They will have to reverse the length of the > roads > > after collecting the bins and then reverse out > of > > the roads onto either Lordship Lane or East > > Dulwich Grove depending on which end the > barriers > > are. Isn't that going to force them to perform > an > > illegal driving maneuver of reversing onto busy > > roads? Also they can't be too pleased with > having > > to reverse down the length of a road. Surely > the > > council would need to do some sort of risk > > assessment? > > Rockets - Just to clarify, the plan is to put the > barriers at the Grove Vale end of each of these > streets. I am assuming that this is to address the > argument I (and no doubt others) made to the Goose > Green councillors when this scheme was initially > pitched, which is that the scheme would end up > worsening air pollution on Grove Vale running past > Goose Green school. The NO2 levels outside Goose > Green school have previously been assessed as in > breach of government and WHO guidelines (although > I?m conscious the school has worked hard with > green screen initiatives to try and mitigate > this). > > In practice however, even in Summer without school > traffic, the Goose Green roundabout is already > struggling to cope with the increased burden > caused by road closures elsewhere, so much so that > I?ve witnessed it at a standstill more than once. > There is therefore in my view a very high > probability that come Autumn, the combined impact > of all these closures will cause queues of idling > traffic outside Goose Green school, in > circumstances where they did not exist previously. So the bin lorries will need to reverse out onto East Dulwich Grove from each of the closed streets. Are they even permitted to do that - surely there an HSE person in the council having nightmares about that!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In fairness, eD generally does answer questions > > and no doubt will this one. > > > > slarti b Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > exDulwicher, It looks like you don't want to > > > answer my question about which roads the > > traffic > > > displaced by the OHS scheme would end up > using. > > > > > Any reason why please? > > If traffic doesn't move then people will find > another way - that's the plan. > > In Wales they've just cancelled the M4 bypass amid > moans and fury - but traffic schemes are being > cancelled everywhere. Just maybe people know > something about the future we don't - it's going > to be driverless. You're absolutely right, people are finding another way and that is why the surrounding roads around the DV closure are so congested and polluted....which is exactly the point we are all trying to make...;-) So is the plan working then, close one road to force everyone onto other roads to slow journey times and increase pollution? Some plan that is.... And your claim that the future will be driverless isn't quite right as autonomous driving is some way off and will require significant infrastructural investment and 5G to make it happen....;-)

Rebs_ED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If roads like Derwent Grove are made > > effectively > > > dead ends - what do things like the bin > lorries > > > do? Or delivery vans? > > > > > > same as they do for Cul de Sacs (the posh name > for > > dead ends) > > cul de sacs often have turning circles, don't > they? - no where for a bin lorry to turn in a > narrow straight road. They will have to reverse the length of the roads after collecting the bins and then reverse out of the roads onto either Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove depending on which end the barriers are. Isn't that going to force them to perform an illegal driving maneuver of reversing onto busy roads? Also they can't be too pleased with having to reverse down the length of a road. Surely the council would need to do some sort of risk assessment?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From page 4 of the pdf I linked to earlier: > > "The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the > median ? which is a better measure of central > tendency here, given the variability of results ? > was a reduction of 10?6%. > In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the > vehicles which were previously using the road or > the area where > roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could > not be found in the surrounding area afterwards." > > That's from a collation of 60 high quality studies > (the pdf references 100 but when analysing them, > 40 were not of suitably high quality or not > long-term enough). Further info and details in the > pdf. > > It can be quite heavily dependent on the area, the > measures imposed, the ratio of population with / > without cars and so on but the figures are broadly > comparable worldwide indicating that weather is > not really a factor. > > The problem with this is due to covid the > alternatives (public transport) do not exist so > lots will just sit it out... > > That is the current elephant in the room. Trains > are back up to about 30% of pre-Covid levels now > which is beginning to make social distancing a > problem on some services. However the pattern of > use has changed - the morning rush is more spread > out and (because it's summer holidays, because a > lot of offices are not fully open) some of the > issues are on services down to the coast - > basically people going to the beach for a day out. > Buses are still a bit of an unknown quantity - TfL > was reckoning about 20% of pre-Covid levels of use > overall but that's offset by a significant drop in > usage in the city as there are far fewer people > there at the moment. That said, it does exist as > an option - I've used ND to London Bridge a few > times and the 176, 40 and 185 services with no > issues. In fact public transport at the moment is > as good as it's ever going to get. Far fewer > passengers, no queues, no standing and, because > there are fewer people the level of service (in > terms of on-time) is excellent. :-) So my guess of about 10% wasn't wildly inaccurate...;-) Now let's flip it on it's head...can the surrounding roads absorb the 80% to 90% of increased traffic due to the closures? Does anyone ever model that into their plans? If we are trying to achieve a 10% reduction then I suggest there are far less disruptive ways of doing it than the path our council, and others, are following and the fallout will be far more damaging. Trying to squeeze more water down the hosepipe of surrounding roads does not lead to evaporation...it leads to burst pipes...just look what happens when Thames Water deals with a pipe or water main leak, they fix it in one place and then 50 yards down the road a new leak appears and they just chase the leaks down the pipe because the infrastructure cannot take the increased pressure and something has to give. Surely no-one, other than the most hardened pro-cycle headbanger can defend all this disruption and increase in pollution elsewhere for a 10% reduction in car use? Cue responses from hardened pro-cycle headbangers...;-)

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're conflating displacement (where the same > amount of traffic is moved from Route A to Route > B) and evaporation (where some vehicle journeys > previously made on the now inaccessible Route A > are made by alternative means - the active travel > plans obviously focus on cycling and walking but > it could also be car-sharing, public transport or > simply that people change their habits - for > example only driving to the shops once a week > rather than three times). > > Hammersmith Bridge is quite a good example, it's > been closed long enough to have some reasonably in > depth assessment done on surrounding traffic and > pollution levels. > > https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/p/179/traffic > -evaporation > https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/has-closing-ha > mmersmith-bridge-really-improved-london-s-air-qual > ity-4731 > > There's a PDF of a metadata study on the subject > here which, although rather wordy, also manages to > keep the maths to a minimum. > https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019- > 05-23-5343-Disappearing%20traffic%20-%20the%20stor > y%20so%20far.pdf > > There's a reasonable chunk of data and info from > places like Hackney and Waltham Forest which have > had similar measures (back when the popular term > was Mini-Holland) for a lot longer than Dulwich as > well. Yes and for those who live on the route to Hammersmith bridge they have seen a huge decrease in traffic but speak to those living near the neighbouring bridges and they will tell you an altogether different story.... Exdulwicher - what is a realistic figure for evaporation in situations like we are seeing in Dulwich. My feeling is that of you're lucky to might get 10% of people switching (during summer months).

The fact that the protagonists for these changes continue to use the phrase traffic evaporation does make me chuckle....everyone knows that anything that evaporates then condenses and falls elsewhere....perhaps wonderfully highlighting beautifully the folly of these closures. They just push the problem elsewhere. And the point on Amsterdam is well made, a very different proposition to London yet continually heralded as the answer. Anyone who bothers to scratch beneath the surface would see that whilst it is a beacon of what can be done when traffic planning embraces all modes of transport you can't apply it to London in any form.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ideas around streets are changing. If the > street is a living space where people can do a > mixture of things it is no longer simply a highway > with parking space. I know this subject is highly > charged and I don't want to add fuel to the fire. > But it is worth imagining the way streets could > change. > > The idea of traffic 'evaporation' is well > documented and worth believing in. > > https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evapora > ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods- > on-main-roads/ And anyone who studied geography will tell you when something evaporates it condenses and then falls as rain elsewhere....which is exactly what these closures cause....

Has the school approved this version of the plan as I thought they had told the council they didn't think their plans were going to help with the problem they were trying to address and actually make matters worse? I had also heard the majority of the school's teachers drive and park locally and we're worried about the impact.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm being mostly tongue in cheek but as someone > who's desperately trying to hang on to her job, > keep the people I am working for happy, work > efficiently but still mostly from home and > desperately trying not melt in this heat, I can't > help but feel as if people have way too much time > on their hands to be ratcheting up the pressure > and counter-pressure to this level! > > A lot of people are bored and frustrated. > Furloughed or WFH, schools are now properly on > holiday too, a lot of people will have had foreign > holidays cancelled or changed and it's lovely > weather. So basically a lot of people with a lot > of time on their hands. > > Most of the time it's fairly harmless - someone > walking round on stilts is a bit eccentric but not > really an issue. Having impromptu music gatherings > and Strictly Come Dancing re-enactments without > thinking about the fact that, y'know there is > still a global pandemic and this is still a ROAD > and people still want to travel along it is > towards the more selfish end of the spectrum. I > doubt anyone has even thought of it has an event > or campaigning - to them it'll just be "a bit of > harmless fun". > > It's that national lack of common sense on display > again. Completely agree. As ever everything becomes so polarised, on the one hand someone cuts the monitoring strips thinking that will somehow scupper the programme or to make a childish point and on the other you have a group who are trying desperately to force turning a grotty bit of tarmac into a village square and an epicentre of entertainment to help their narrative. Both great examples of the extremes of the argument and neither of which reflect the views of most of the people on either side of it.